In this thread a link was given that led to this page that discusses what constitutes emotional abuse, and it gave a list of the “rights” a person has in a relationship which are listed below.
While most of these seem to me to be commonsense guidelines for mutual respect and good manners in a relationship are (or should these be) actual “rights”? People do stupid stuff in relationships all the time. If your boyfriend flirts with your best friend at a party should he have an inherent “right” be free from accusation, blame, name calling or judgment? If your girlfriend blows the mutual rent money on a pair of Jimmy Choo heelsthat were on sale, does she have a “right” not to be criticized or yelled at?
What is a “right” in the context of an interpersonal relationship?
Well, I think putting it in terms of rights is kind of silly. Having said that, I think that all of these are more or less necessary components of healthy relationships.
The right to good will from the other.
The right to emotional support.
The right to be heard by the other and to be responded to with courtesy.
The right to have your own view, even if your partner has a different view.
The right to have your feelings and experience acknowledged as real.
The right to receive a sincere apology for any jokes you may find offensive.
The right to clear and informative answers to questions that concern what is legitimately your business.
The right to have your work and your interests spoken of with respect.
The right to encouragement.
The right to live free from emotional and physical threat.
The right to live free from angry outbursts and rage.
The right to be called by no name that devalues you.
The right to be respectfully asked rather than ordered.
Read the archives of any relationship advice columnist and you’ll see echoes of these popping up. Of course, these “rights” can be corrupted. Yes, you deserve emotional support from your partner but, no, that does not mean your partner should put up with it if you’re an emotional vampire. Yes you have a right to encouragement, but, no, that doesn’t mean your SO should encourage you in your plan to quit your job and do something wildly impractical. etc. But, as guidelines, there is something to these.
You seem to mostly be objecting to these:
The right to live free from accusation and blame.
The right to live free from criticism and judgment.
I can see why a person talking from the standpoint of abusive relationships would include them. I can also see why you’re objecting. I think the disagreement stems from the kind of conduct each of you has in mind. I would imagine the author is picturing a horribly maligned person whose self worth has been utterly destroyed by the incessant verbal abuse of their partner, rather than someone invoking a “right” to escape legitimate criticism.
Agreed. And given that all of these “rights” are things you demand from the other person, I think that we can all come up with instances when we’ve violated our SO’s “rights.”
I basically agree with this, the only thing I feel needs elaborating on is that entering into a relationship doesn’t automatically negate your rights as an individual, it simply places them withing the context of a relationship.
Well, given that I was the one who pointed you to that link…
I agree that putting it in terms of “rights” is a bit silly and probably counterproductive.
But you seem to have missed the point. Or you’re deliberately refusing to accept it.
And I’m sure Jimmy Choo wouldn’t appreciate you using him as a straw man.
Honestly, astro, you seem to be trying to subtly insinuate that an accusation of “emotional abuse” is just a woman’s overreaction and/or an attempt at deflecting blame from herself. I’m sure that some women have lied and claimed abuse where there was none, but I doubt it’s too common.
Most abusive men refuse to acknowledge their own abusive behavior, and so I’m sure there are a lot of guys who have a MAJOR interest in deligitimizing women’s reports of abuse.
I think this basically nails it, but I would add that they do also have a legal right to be free of physical abuse or threats.
I understand Green bean’s concerns, but I think a lot of these so-called “rights” are complete bullshit. A right to be free of judgement and criticism? Sorry, no, it doesn’t work that way. A grown up understands that everything he or she does is subject to judgment and criticism. It is reasonable to expect to be free from abuse, but not all criticism, judgement, even anger is abuse. Not every decision a person makes in a relationship deserves to be treated with acceptance and respect. No relationship works the way that author seems to think they should. People fuck up and they forgive each other. They make stupid decisions, and they need to be told they’re being stupid. There has to be room for some good natured teasing and ego deflation.
By the standards of that list, I am an abused husband. My wife judges me and criticizes me. She calls me names, and makes fun of me. She tells me when I’m being a fuckup and doesn’t let me get away with it. She’s also my best friend, and she’s the most supportive, tolerant, forgiving partner a pesron could ask for. I’m not abused. That list is ridiculous.
But you have that right even with respect to people you’re not in a relationship with. It’s not really a “relationship” thing; that’s fundamental law, transcending the status of your relationship, or lack thereof, with someone.
In other words, it should go without saying, though I realize that, sadly, it is not always so.
(Other that that, I agree 100% with everything you typed.)
I agree that **Green Bean’s **additions improve the list.
Something I think critics of the list may be overlooking is how, at least historically, abused women were denied those rights by the community at large, yet expected to stay in the relationship. For example, a woman’s decision to disrupt her children’s lives by getting a divorce on the basis of her husband’s angry outbursts, calling her names, withholding financial information, and general lack of respect for anything she did would not have been considered a sound decision. So it may be more of a right not to be criticized for leaving a relationship when the rights on the list were violated, even if it caused some disruption, discomfort, or embarassment in the lives of others. Especially if there are kids involved, leaving an abusive spouse is something most people need some family or community support to do.
People sure as hell WANT these rights for themselves. When they are expected to extend them to someone else (to their own detriment/aggravation/whatever)…not so much.
That’s one thing I really noticed about that list. It’s all very individual-centric, I didn’t really get a sense of “we” from that list. I willingly entered into a partnership with my SO. I would say that WE share responsibility for the success and failures of our relationship. The way the list is worded it sounds like to separate entities brokering a some kind of treaty rather than a pair of partners with a shared goal of developing a healthy bond and nurturing, enriching relationship environment.
ETA: (Hee-hee! Mis-typed “nurturing” to make it almost “neutering”!)
ETA: I would say I have “expectations” of a healthy relationship, and not so much “rights”. I have the right to leave, but I expect that I will be treated by respect by the one who professes to love me. If those expectations are not met, then I have the right to opt-out.
I think this misses a point about the people who are the audience for a list like that. Living in an abusive relationship, which may be the result of going right from abusive parents to one or more abusive partners, tends to destroy the sense of self. It’s not about going in and auditing the fundamentally healthy relationships of basically healthy people for compliance with some treaty. It’s about letting people know that it’s OK to leave a guy just because he makes you miserable. It’s OK even if what he’s doing isn’t illegal. It’s OK even if he also sometimes does good things. It’s OK even if he is perfectly nice to everyone else. (and yes, it’s OK to reverse the genders) It’s a boundary problem, where the person being abused doesn’t have enough boundaries to define a self.
I’m thankful not to be involved with people who don’t get that this is just common sense, but I sure have known a few in the past.
I don’t think that this list needs to be analyzed too deeply. “The right to live free from criticism and judgment” doesn’t apply to “Honey, does this belt match my shoes?” “No, that doesn’t look good. Try the other belt.” What’s being discussed is “You’re so stupid. Can’t you do anything right?” These things have to be read with a little common sense in mind.
Then again, there are people who would respond to the belt comment by flipping out about they’re constantly being criticized and judged. Common sense isn’t always very common.
I agree that you should take into account the intended audience, but as DigitalC said, having it underscored that your most fundamental right in a relationship is that you absolutely can walk away, is important.
You should look for a nurturing partnerships where both partners’ needs are met, and if that isn’t happening you need to know that you can leave. No where in the original list does it say: “You have the right to get the hell out of there if you are abused, belittled harassed, or made to feel lower than dogshit. You are not property. You can leave.”
I realize this thread is discussing things on a more practical level, rather than a strict definition of legal rights in a marriage, but because I’ve already looked it up, I just wanted to say that in Québec, there are some legal statements that had to be said as part of the marriage ceremony, and they explain some of the rights each spouse has. The officiant is required to say the following:
The definitions of patrimony and matrimonial regime as used in Québec are defined here.
This is for a legal, civil marriage (any religious detail is added on top of this, but cannot replace/remove this), and the wording is similar but not quite the same for a civil union.
That’s because the abused person probably can’t even conceive of walking away until he or she starts to realize that they do have the right not to be treated like shit. The abused person knows perfectly well that he or she can walk away. But they likely don’t believe that they deserve anything better than what they’re getting. When the sense of self is completely destroyed, as Harriet describes, a person can’t always do what seems obvious to anyone who is in a healthy relationship.
Look at it this way–In AA, they say that an alcoholic can’t be helped until the person accepts that he or she has a problem, right?
Well, an abused person can’t address the issue until he or she accepts that it may indeed be an abusive situation.
I never would have guessed that my marriage was so abusive until…well, one day I saw the forest for the trees. And only then could I leave. (er, no pun intended)
That’s one of the reasons why physical abuse can be easier to deal with in many ways than emotional abuse. If my husband had hit me, it would have been quite obvious that he was “abusing” me. And all of the people who don’t seem to quite grasp the horror of emotional abuse would be saying “that bastard! He should be in jail.”